- From: Sebastian Hellmann <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
- Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 11:34:26 +0200
- To: Clement Jonquet <jonquet@lirmm.fr>, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@fi.upm.es>
- Cc: holze@informatik.uni-leipzig.de, "semantic-web@w3.org Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <7653fb5a-15e4-161c-79b2-24b36d7035d8@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
Hi Clement, On 03.09.21 09:46, Clement Jonquet wrote: > Hi Sebastian, all > > Indeed, there has been several initiatives to develop concrete > methodologies and tools with >>> >>> implementable criteria to evaluate >>> > The level of FAIRness. > Note that the subject of "ontology evaluation » (i.e., quality) is > different and way more older than FAIR. The authors of the FAIR > principles have clearly distinguished FAIRness and quality. > What exactly is the relation of FAIR and quality? Data quality has 1. a narrow definition which just focuses on the data content or payload, i.e. accuracy/correctness and 2. a broader one that also covers many other aspects such as accessibility and availability, even performance depending on where you look in the literature (good summary in http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/quality-assessment-linked-data-survey). Nevertheless, the main aspect of data quality is focused on the user or usage. FAIR as a label reads quite user-oriented, suggesting that there is some user who can find, access and reuse things labeled FAIR better. Then, I basically stopped reading most of the plentiful FAIR literature nowadays, because they are not user-oriented, i.e. they lack a motivational part that clearly demonstrates benefits if done in a FAIR way. The triangulation from FAIR to use case or usefulness seems to be missing. I would like to mention schema.org here as a potential alternative to FAIR. > clearly distinguished FAIRness and quality Hopefully, the distinguishing point is not the lack of usage orientation in FAIR. > In fact, turning the FAIR principles into concrete implementable tests > or checks is perfectly doable. And actually, it is expected, a not > only for semantics artefacts, but for any kind of research objects to > which the FAIR principles may apply more or less directly. > Daniel mentioned their new FOOPS. > On our side, (folks working on ontology repositories) – because it has > been demonstrated that the repositories/catalogues to share semantic > resources are in fact very important for their FAIRness (e.g. [3]) – > we are working on prototyping a FAIRness assessment component inside > ontology repositories (in our case AgroPortal). > https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-03208544/ > <https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-03208544/> > https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-03232615 > <https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/lirmm-03232615> (French only sorry, > the English version is on its way, but there is a screenshot of our proto) > > The first paper presents a metrics (assessment grid) that can be used > to implement methods for FAIRness assessment. Plus, it also lists the > possible concrete metadata fields on which someone can base « > implementable tests ». The second presents one method/tool that we > develop within AgroPortal (well, in fact, the tool will be generic and > will work on any OntoPortal installation that offers the required > metadata properties). > > The overall goal of FAIRness assessment is not just to obtain a score > of course but for sure find ways for ontology developers to enhance > the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of > the semantic artefacts. Thus play a role to >>> >>> yield better and reliable ontologies >>> > > Glad to see DBPedia is also interested in the subject with Archivo. > The ontology quality evaluation done in Archivo shall certainly be > very useful, but I don’t see it opposed to or more « hard » than the > concrete FAIRness evaluation systems being built now. I would claim that Archivo comes from the opposing direction. It follows a usage-oriented methodology. The "hard" criteria here is whether you can - as a consumer (data scientist / programmer level) - find, access and reuse data. So the testing would be concerned with the question, whether the data quality in its broader definition (i.e. the one that subsumes the most relevant aspects of FAIR ) is sufficient. > However, I would not claim Archivo being the first initiative to have a >>> >>> a holistic view over all available ontologies >>> > As Swoogle, Watson and Sindice did it in the past. Aren't these search engines? "Search" means that you can look at a relevant selection based on a search criteria, which is very far from holistic. Maybe there was an aspect to these projects that I overlooked. Did they publish the crawls? Are they still available? Where is the overview page? I would like to acknowledge LOD laundromat here as a source of inspiration for Archivo. -- Sebastian > Bye > Clement > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Dr. Clement JONQUET – PhD in Informatics > Associate Research Scientist – INRAE (MISTEA) > Associate Professor – University of Montpellier (LIRMM) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Le 2 sept. 2021 à 19:44, Daniel Garijo <dgarijo@fi.upm.es >> <mailto:dgarijo@fi.upm.es>> a écrit : >> >> Hello, >> while FAIR may have been initially discussed for sharing data, part >> of the community (including myself and colleagues) has been >> discussing for the last years how to adapt FAIR for semantic >> artefacts in a more concrete manner [1] [2] [3]. This has been used >> to develop validators such as our recent ISWC demo paper [4] (demo >> accessible at https://w3id.org/foops/ <https://w3id.org/foops/>). >> >> I hope these pointers can inform any discussion towards a new >> evaluation framework for reliable ontology adoption in industry. >> >> Best regards, >> Daniel >> >> 1. Coming to terms with FAIR ontologies: A position paper. >> <http://dgarijo.com/papers/EKAW2020_Coming_to_Terms_with_FAIR_Ontologies.pdf> >> María Poveda-Villalón, Paola Espinoza-Arias, Daniel Garijo and >> Oscar Corcho. Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on >> Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (EKAW 2020) >> 2. Best Practices for Implementing FAIR Vocabularies and Ontologies >> on the Web. >> <http://dgarijo.com/papers/best_practices2020.pdf>Daniel Garijo >> and María Poveda-Villalón. In Applications and Practices in >> Ontology Design, Extraction, and Reasoning. IOS Press, >> Netherlands, 2020 >> 3. D2.5 FAIR Semantics Recommendations Second Iteration (Version >> 1.0). <https://zenodo.org/record/4314321> Wim Hugo, Yann Le >> Franc, Gerard Coen, Jessica Parland-von Essen and Luiz Bonino, >> Luiz. (2020). Zenodo. >> 4. FOOPS!: An Ontology Pitfall Scanner for the FAIR principles >> <https://foops.linkeddata.es/assets/iswc_2021_demo.pdf>. Daniel >> Garijo, Oscar Corcho and María Poveda. To appear in the 2021 ISWC >> demo track. >> >> >> El mié, 1 sept 2021 a las 13:47, DBpedia >> (<pr-aksw@informatik.uni-leipzig.de >> <mailto:pr-aksw@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>>) escribió: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Exactly 1 year ago, we presented DBpedia Archivo >> https://archivo.dbpedia.org <https://archivo.dbpedia.org/>(paper >> <https://svn.aksw.org/papers/2020/semantics_archivo/public.pdf>, >> video >> <https://2020-eu.semantics.cc/dbpedia-archivo-web-scale-interface-ontology-archiving-under-consumer-oriented-aspects>) >> at SEMANTiCS 2020. Our initial vision was to create a fully >> automated, persistent Ontology Archive that serves as a backbone >> for the Semantic Web and brings a convenient and stable interface >> to ontology users. We are listing some points that we would judge >> as great successes and highlights of running Archivo for over a >> year. Read the full list on our blog >> <https://www.dbpedia.org/blog/dbpedia-archivo-1-year-retrospective/>. >> >> September 9th, 2021 at 1pm CEST: In particular, we would like to >> invite you to the DBpedia Ontology session >> <https://www.dbpedia.org/events/dbpedia-day-semantics-2021/>at >> the DBpedia Day at SEMANTiCS 2021 >> <https://2021-eu.semantics.cc/>to discuss the future roadmap for >> Archivo as a Unified Semantic Ontology Space (USOS) and what the >> role of the DBpedia Ontology will be in the Semantic Web. >> The session will host impulse talks with ample room for >> discussion. For the first time in the history of the Semantic >> Web, Archivo offers the possibility to create a Unified Semantic >> Ontology Space (USOS), a holistic view over all available >> ontologies. Instead of soft and fuzzy principles such as FAIR, we >> will discuss hard, implementable criteria to evaluate ontologies >> in preparation of a well-defined, measurable standard, which will >> ultimately yield better and reliable ontologies for industrial >> applications. Another topic is the central collaboration on links >> and mappings between ontologies to create a more dense and >> well-connected web of ontologies. Join the discussion and >> register here >> https://www.dbpedia.org/events/dbpedia-day-semantics-2021/ >> <https://www.dbpedia.org/events/dbpedia-day-semantics-2021/>. >> >> Stay tuned and stay safe! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> The DBpedia Association >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 3 September 2021 09:34:47 UTC